Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre

Split Steamtown

Restructured pages that were the Steamtown museum into two separate pages - one on the Heritage precinct, and one on the operating society.

THese are two separate entities, with two different purposes. The Precinct page will need further work Sulzer55 (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style

I have reverted a series of edits that added very little of substance to the article. Ozdaren (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More cleanup

Thanks OD for cleanup Mangoo2 - if you have ref, please use them. Sulzer55 (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page, per discussion below. - GTBacchus(talk) 23:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre → Steamtown Peterborough — Searching "Steamtown Peterborough" in Google finds the Steamtown Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc page (also known as "Steamtown Peterborough" - but now defunct). The Society has been defunct since 2005. The Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre is also known as "Steamtown Peterborough". Though its official name is Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre, it is not commonly known by this name. The SHRC is a currently operating commercial concern. I believe that someone searching for Steamtown Peterborough is looking for the current Museum and therefore the first point of call should be the ongoing concern and not the historical reference. The problem exists in that a search for Steamtown Peterborough sends you to the SPRPS page (the historical reference); and the editors of that page (and also of the SHRC page) are preventing any disambiguation and clarification and not allowing edits nor the placement of hats on these pages. Please see discussion on Sulzer55 Talk page. The name of the page needs to be changed to the commonly used name to assist readers in finding this page. References to the 2 pages should be included as hats for disambiguation.| relisting billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC) | Mangoeater2 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure there is actually a problem here. Both articles are referenced and Wikilinked in each other. A hatnote on each may well make things clearer, but I can't see that the proposed move makes anything clearer. Perhaps the problem was that the hatnote you put up didn't really clarify anything. I would suggest something along the lines of:
  • Skinsmoke (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Talk page on Sulzer55 - all of my edits have been undone by Ozdaren and Sulzer55 including my placement of hats (the simplest solution). If they will not allow edits (including hats) then the name change would be a good start. I had hats that said "This article is about the Steamtown Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc. For the current Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre see Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre" (and vice versa) - pretty clear (but removed each time I put them up). Note: Discussion with Sulzer55 has gone no where to date - they are still removing all of my edits. Mangoeater2 (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dazza - The use of the term "steamtown peterborough" appears to be colloquial and parochial to the Town of Peterborough - Most people I know refer to it as the "steamtown museum". I would disagree with changing names of pages to suit colloquial terminology. The reason the pages were split was to ensure that the entities, and their histories, are seen and recorded separately.Sulzer55 (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any comment on the hatnotes from Sulzer55 or Ozdaren? The rule is quite simple: Be bold—Revert—Discuss. If that is not followed there are procedures for dealing with breaches by an editor, but changing the article title is not the answer. This really does all look like a storm in a teacup: looks like the three of you need your heads banging together. Wikipedia can only work by consensus. I have read the Talk page, which seems somewhat confrontational, and not purely on Sulzer55's part! An awful lot was said over a period of 24 hours, but very little of it was constructive. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see the hatnotes are back. Good move Sulzer55! Hopefully, this will deal with any confusion and the move proposal can be dropped. Can I suggest you all take a deep breath and see if you can work together on the two pages: it will benefit Wikipedia more and I'm sure you will find it more satisfying. Instead of boldly jumping in with edits (which everyone is entitled to do), given the ill feeling that has built up, try discussing potential changes on the Talk page first, and develop a consensus. If that can work for Northern Ireland issues, it should work for a few steam engines in South Australia. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks skinsmoke. Discussion will take place on the appropriate pages (I was not aware of these). SHRC page is almost as I wanted it originally. I have no objection to the minor amendments from the text I put in. Mangoeater2 (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Railways and Railway towns have a long history of social disharmony - I have no ill-feelings, just don't like people coming in and telling me what to do. Thanks too for hitting the nail on the head, Skinsmoke - am happy to use the talk pages, as OzDarren and I have done. there been a history of people making wholesale changes to these two pages, which we have reverted to maintain integrity, I personally have taken great care to ensure accuracy in the articles, and will continue to do so. Hence the decision made ages ago to split the pages One issue I agree with Dazza on is the games, These killed Steamtown. I have, however taken on board a number of comments, and will continue to refine and enhance BOTH pages. Thanks for your comments Sulzer55 (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skinsmoke - request for move rescinded. Mangoeater2 (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sulzer - Truce?
I will cease the request for mediation as I feel that we are now coming to some agreement.
If I had known about these pages earlier a lot of the reverting and angst would not have occurred. I only found Ozdaren's personal talk page by accident and through that yours. I apologise for my side of the "discussion".
I have left a comment on the SPRPS discussion page re some residual "problems" and a possible solution. I think you may agree with me on one and disagree with the other. Let's discuss it.
The "problems" are:
To use "the Society" on the SPRPS page rather than "Steamtown" (and likewise "the Heritage Rail Centre" on the SHRC page)
and the contentious one of stating that both organisations were or are known as just "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough" - for historical correctness. See my possible solution to the problem of ambiguity (besides the hats which would be the primary removal of confusion).
I also want to refine and enhance the two pages - but concentrating on the SHRC page. My work now is almost done - but I reserve the right to come back and review the pages periodically to see that the integrity of the SHRC page is not lost. I believe that you will do most of that policing! LOL I will discuss any problems (perceived) with you to co-ordinate efforts.
I will still not use references for non contentious statements, but if anything needs support I will put in references. Let me know of items that you see as needing citation.
I would like to hear more about Ian's work and non recognition. Can you email me this (as this will be outside Wikipedia's realm)? I would like to research this aspect a bit more from this end as well, as I believe that he did a lot of work to get the centre to the point at which the new Manager (a Marketing person) has taken over from. I would like to think that he can get the recognition that he deserves for all of his work done. Mangoeater2 (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleaned up references

Made a number of minor changes to clean up the text in relation to the references used, and to improve readabilty.

And yes, have removed the hats again (and then put them back) - the articles were one many edits ago, and were split to ensure clarity between the two entities. Logos of each are used as wellSulzer55 (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits

Reverted edits to the hats, including the adding of references to "steamtown Peterborough". I have done this, and will continue to do this, to ensure that each page is reflective of the official name of each entity. This, I believe, will reduce the likelyhood of anyone confusing which "steamtown peterborough" is which!Sulzer55 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Cleanup

HAve added refs re the Peterborough Division and the Standardisation Project. Also cleaned up wording of some sections, removed STP refs and ammended ref to "sheep/cattle" car - it is a sheep wagon - will find the fleet code and update Sulzer55 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna do that (check out just what the car was called and correct the entry). At least I got the caption to the picture right. LOL. We CAN work together!
I think discussion on the STP refs should be discussed - as mentioned above in Requested Move. I am not too fussed about it though - but both entities were and are known as ST and STP (using your abbreviations). Mangoeater2 (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot edit the captions to my photos - let me know of the corrections and I will edit them appropriately. I also want acuracy on the pages. Mangoeater2 (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Sulzer55

As most of my comments are from personal observation, do you want me to put up a reference as "personal observation NAME Management Committee member" ? Most of my observations and comments are not documented anywhere so written references would probably not be available. I will try to get a written reference to the Rotary award. I am pleased to see that my comment about increasd tourist visits to Peterborough was able to be referenced - I was not aware that this had been written up in the paper. Mangoeater2 (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mangoeater2, but if they are "personal observations" they don't really have a place in Wikipedia. Anything included should be verifiable by independent sources. The simple rule is that if they can't be verified, they stay out of the encyclopedia. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in relation to non contentious statements only such as "staffed by volunteers". I am sure that something has been written about that which could be quoted - but would it really be necessary?.
Where a question can be raised about the comment I will reference it (as I have been doing of late). Note: Wikipedia wants 98% of comments referenced but acknowledges that not every statement needs a reference.
A lot of Sulzer55's comments are worded in such a way as to show bias (against the SHRC and the Council) and are therefore contentious - these I am now amending (with references) or deleting as unsupported. If he wants to reinsert these "biased" comments as he has written them, then let him reference them with equally worded quotes. One such comment was that "this was all the support that the Council gave" (or some such wording) - I have now added the comment "this is despite the Coucil's input of $199,000 towards the maintaining of the Society" (with references) - this is a substantially different statement to Sulzer55's.
I am still "battling" Sulzer55 for every edit, though he seems to admit most of them after some struggle.
By the way, Sulzer55 has requested a disambiguation page - where can I find that discussion? Mangoeater2 (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for a discussion on creating a disambiguation page. Just type "Steamtown, Peterborough", for example, into the Search box at the top of the page, then press enter. That will bring up a page of search results, at the top of which should be a red link saying if you want to create the page..... Click on the red link and you will get an edit pane for the new title. Just create the disambiguation page in that pane. However, there is already a disambiguation page at Steamtown, which should be sufficient for anyone's needs. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SHRC Minutes

Sulzer55

I have discussed your comment about having the SHRC minutes available on the web with another committee member. It was thought to be a good idea.

The SHRC has been trying to get a web page up for some years now (various problems on the side of the various web developers has meant that the site is still not available).

Priority has been given to getting the website up and running by the current Manager.

When the site is up and running we will put up the SHRC minutes (links on a page) so that people such as yourself can access them freely. Please be patient as we are probably about to get yet another web developer to create the site and this may take a few months before the site is up and running. Mangoeater2 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page

Have requested a disambiguation page so the uniformed can work out which "steamtown peterborough" they want Sulzer55 (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mangoeater2 (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safety issues

Revised discussion in relation to the tours - the previous wording implies that the facilities are unsafe, whereas the revised wording is intended to put a positive spin on the experience. If the "fact" is the facility is unsafe - why are people being allowed in there? (please revert if this "spin" is not acceptable) removed words Due to the fact that the Museum is situated in a previously working Rail yard (with many dangers and obstructions), Sulzer55 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your changes, but, in relation to the facility being unsafe, the precinct is not safe for visitors to wander freely over ALL of it, but many areas (where the tours are conducted) are safe for visitors. The guides restrict the movement of visitors to the safe areas. You know this!
Note: The Eiffel Tower is similarly unsafe for visitors to wander freely all over it, but this is not closed to visitors (in the same way the Centre is "open" to visitors only when guided). Mangoeater2 (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dazza - I know nothing about what SHRC or the council has done to ensure the safety of the public when in the facility. Last time I was there the guide had a fit as he was corrected on a number of issues, including safety. I do know that ANRC closed access because it deemed the facility unsafe for any entry. I do know some money has been spent on the area, but that the roof has blown off, the ground is grossly contaminated, and that heavy metals and asbestos still remain in some parts. Sulzer55 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the roof - perhaps repaired? A lot of money has been spent on remedying the contamination to make it safe for the public and the asbestos areas are off limits to everyone. The Guide - another of your subjective comments that cannot be verified? You really HATE the SHRC don't you Sulzer? Yet you say you are unbiased.
PS Was that last entry addressed to me or for someone else - Dazza - I have seen you address some other comments the same but thought that was Skinsmoke's name. Mangoeater2 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More refs

Have added additional refs from the web re activities at the centre, also tidied some wording for improved readability Sulzer55 (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your changes. I was going to ask Ben (and his mother) for permission to put his full name up before doing so, but you have done it already and I agree with just "Ben". Mangoeater2 (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spoke to Ben tonight. He is happy for this reference to remain. Mangoeater2 (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is in the public domain Sulzer55 (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but it is still a courtesy to ask permission (esoecially as he is under 18). Mangoeater2 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to just "Steamtown"

I have removed ambiguous references to "Steamtown" and replaced them with either "the Society" or "the Centre" to assist in removing the ambiguity created by this common term. I have done this to both sites. Mangoeater2 (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See section "Removal of ref to "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough"" on the SPRPS Discussion page for further informaion. Mangoeater2 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EAR request

Membersof the WP:EAR team have addressed an editor enquiry at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Conflict of Interest - Steamtown Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc vs Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre editing, and made their recommendations. Do take the opportunity to follow any links that explain relevant policy..--Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add reference to both entities being known as just "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough"

I want to add into the first section:

"Though both the "Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre" and the "Steamtown, Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc" were and are known as simply "Steamtown" or "Steamtown Peterborough", only the term "the Centre" will be used in referencing the Heritage Rail Centre on this page; to clarify which organisation is being referred to."

I want to add this to let the reader know that they are viewing a page on "Steamtown" but also to let them know which entity they are reading about.

I suspect that any one researching these pages does not know that there are 2 "Steamtown"s and that the Hats do not say that both entities were known as "Steamtown" or "Steamtown Peterborough" only.

Comments? Losing the separation of the pages? or clarifying "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough" for the reader?

This is something I am NOT sure of editing in.

This same comment will be added to the SPRPS's Discussion page. Mangoeater2 (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decapitalisation

The recent edit has removed capitalisation on many words. Some of these words are proper nouns and should be capitalised (eg the Centre [short for the Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre] and the Diesel Shed [which is not a description but is the name of that particular building]). I am therefore going to go back through the article and capitalise those words which are proper nouns. Mangoeater2 (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to 3 gauges on turntable

I have removed the reference to the 3 guage turntable "being a result of the standardisation project of the 1960s" as the turntable was installed in 1923 with the 3 gauges on it. Webb wanted all 3 gauges to meet at Peterborough but the broad gauge line from Terowie was never extended to Peterborough. I need to find a reference for this before I put it up. The original reference only had RJF as a reference - a persons initials? Mangoeater2 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that 1960s was correct - will undo my edit. Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steamtown_Heritage_Rail_Centre